Wait just a hot second here, my peace-wishing FRiend...yours is the most "jaundiced", biased, self-proving statement yet. It is the Roman organization which has imputed more meaning into the remarks of Jesus than are actually there. He gave them authority to perform miracles in the surrounding towns. There was no organization, and no institution. Go read the text without the Rome-colored glasses (pretty clever, eh?).
You wrote:
“There was no organization, and no institution.”
Well, I typed out a long reply with 9 separate points and then the internet ate it. Shame on me for not saving it in Word first!
I’ll reduce everything to this:
There’s no logical way around the following: the sharing and distribution of goods and monies from a common purse or fund, the designation of leaders and levels of leadership, the clear lines between leaders and others, Jesus’ use of parables for outsiders but the straight story for insiders (Apostles and Disciples), the designated tasks and expansion of levels of leadership and tasks (e.g. deacons serving), discussion of issues in committe or conference and issuing of new rules for followers (Acts 15), the power to oust heretics or public sinners from the assembly, the very idea that the assembly has expections about your behavior and you can be ousted for not measuring up, organized efforts (like EVERYONE praying for Peter when he was arrested, the establishment of house churches and finding of helpers, the fact that St. Paul could leave his property with someone and recall it when he needed it, St. Paul keeping in touch and teaching by letters, the use of specialized terms, the use of specialized rites of initiation (baptism) - all of these show there was an organization and an institution and it was and is the Church.